A report from HWBattle is making the rounds claiming that new information has surfaced on AMD's upcoming high-performance, consumer versions of the Vega architecture. According to these reports, Vega graphics cards will (at least initially) come in two different performance tiers. A top of the line GPU, Vega 10 (being identified as Vega XT), and a cut-down version of it, based on Vega 11 (which is being called Vega Pro). Graphics chips for graphics card integration are supposedly being shipped to partners as of this week.

HWBattle goes on to say that there will be a myriad of approaches to AMD's AIB partner designs around the Vega graphics chips, with multiple cooling solutions being worked on (which isn't surprising, really; graphics cards nowadays can see upwards of 4 different cooling designs for the same GPU, according to the use case the company is designing it for. HWBattle is also saying that Vega will be faster than the GTX 1080, though there's no information on whether this only applies to the top-tier GPU or no. Other details are scant, scarce, or nonexistent; it would seem that the launch delay from AMD has sapped some of the interest surrounding Vega.

rtwjunkie said:So anybody want to guess how many actually are available to buy initially? I bet miners will snap the initial batch up.

Nah, miners will wait for reviews to check power consumption. Just make sure to pre-order and there should be considerably more than the 20.000 rumoured before since AMD has had time to source HBM2 and produce vega cards.

eidairaman1 said:AMD better be working on their next arch already due to all these delays, plus they only said 1080, not 1080Ti.

Any company in the business starts working on the next card's design the instant they finalize the current design and send it to be taped out. No point in having idling engineers. You have some of your engineers assigned to quality control on the current production but the major guys have already started to lay the groundwork. I'm sure Raja knew what he was going for with Navi awhile back.

eidairaman1 said:AMD better be working on their next arch already due to all these delays, plus they only said 1080, not 1080Ti.

Just because they only said "1080", doesn't mean anything. This is a rumor from a source stating the obvious, of course a 480 GB/s+ 13 TFLOP+ card is stronger than the bloody 1080 lol!

I encourage you to go to the source, it's a Chinese site stating that this information is not 100% confirmed at all. At the moment Vega will compete with the 1080 Ti at a minimum, but let's be honest - it is honestly hard to quantify performance these days.

I just got done benchmarking a bunch of cards and on average my overclocked Fury Nano beats the 1070 by ~5%. However, in some games at certain resolutions the (Highly Overclocked) R9 Nano beat the 1080 Ti by 5%, and in some situations the Nano lost to the 1070 by a full 20%! With 4K vs 1080p, competing API's, and silly things like Gamesworks performance varies A LOT. Don't expect AMD to announce performance of Vega too much because there will always be scenarios where they are "wrong". Just wait for the benchmarks...

trparky said:Anyone else tired of waiting? I'm so damn close to just buying the GTX 1080.

Some of us didn't wait we got two Polaris for the job and saved money , and as a bonus ,now mine made me £100+ while the last two weeks passed , keep em Amd im not arsed lolz, let me save up for one yet , well for my pc to save up for one :)
Im saving for moaore polariiiii,but they(Amd) could do with making some.

@those demqnding Amd beat the ti or weva

What's the point if you're Amd , if and when they have done that ,Nvidia just release their next best gpu superchip and charge fans a double premium for the few cards about, Amd need market and mind share and they do definitely need good performance , epic , not really depending on price and they can't price too high anyway because they want market share.
Its been a while coming but i think it mostly due to memory supply issues ,lets hope it's good , be nice to see Amd do a year of successful releases.

Captain_Tom said:Just because they only said "1080", doesn't mean anything. This is a rumor from a source stating the obvious, of course a 480 GB/s+ 13 TFLOP+ card is stronger than the bloody 1080 lol!

I encourage you to go to the source, it's a Chinese site stating that this information is not 100% confirmed at all. At the moment Vega will compete with the 1080 Ti at a minimum, but let's be honest - it is honestly hard to quantify performance these days.

I just got done benchmarking a bunch of cards and on average my overclocked Fury Nano beats the 1070 by ~5%. However, in some games at certain resolutions the (Highly Overclocked) R9 Nano beat the 1080 Ti by 5%, and in some situations the Nano lost to the 1070 by a full 20%! With 4K vs 1080p, competing API's, and silly things like Gamesworks performance varies A LOT. Don't expect AMD to announce performance of Vega too much because there will always be scenarios where they are "wrong". Just wait for the benchmarks...

Did I strike a nerve? Check my system specs to see where I am coming from

Captain_Tom said:Just because they only said "1080", doesn't mean anything. This is a rumor from a source stating the obvious, of course a 480 GB/s+ 13 TFLOP+ card is stronger than the bloody 1080 lol!

I encourage you to go to the source, it's a Chinese site stating that this information is not 100% confirmed at all. At the moment Vega will compete with the 1080 Ti at a minimum, but let's be honest - it is honestly hard to quantify performance these days.

I just got done benchmarking a bunch of cards and on average my overclocked Fury Nano beats the 1070 by ~5%. However, in some games at certain resolutions the (Highly Overclocked) R9 Nano beat the 1080 Ti by 5%, and in some situations the Nano lost to the 1070 by a full 20%! With 4K vs 1080p, competing API's, and silly things like Gamesworks performance varies A LOT. Don't expect AMD to announce performance of Vega too much because there will always be scenarios where they are "wrong". Just wait for the benchmarks...

The 1070 is about as fast a s a 980ti. We know an overclocked nano will match a Fury X which we know matches a 980ti. At 4k, a 1080 ti is substantially faster than a 980ti.

By Vegas release date, Volta will be looming so it's academic. I know you have been very pro AMD in almost, in fact every post you make but your unbridled enthusiasm has to meet reality at some point. Fury X had 8.5 T/flops of performance and matches a 980ti. That card only had 5.63T/flops. Just because the Frontier edition has 13 T/Flops doesn't mean much in the actual reality of performance. We'll all need to wait and see but going on past performance, AMD stomps Nvidia in compute (T/Flops performance) but it doesn't match it in real world gains. Yes, they have a new arch (they dont, they've added stuff to GCN, it's not new yet) but a new arch guarantees nothing.

I not trying to rain on any parades (why would I have bought Ryzen?) but I am genuinely amazed how much faster the 1080ti is to the 980ti. Considering all the misguided people that say the 10xx series is just a refresh and it's boring, well you know it is really freaking fast. Stock for stock a 1080ti is 82% faster than a 980ti. No matter how you spin it, it's very impressive. Vega needs to work absolute, R&D busting miracles to be better than it.

trparky said:Anyone else tired of waiting? I'm so damn close to just buying the GTX 1080.

If you're looking for a card now, then just buy it already. It's not like Vega is going to crush Pascal.
In just a few months we'll be talking of Volta, so if you keep waiting you'll never get a card. Also keep in mind that the launch of Vega is still over a month away, and the initial availability will be limited.

eidairaman1 said:AMD better be working on their next arch already due to all these delays, plus they only said 1080, not 1080Ti.

Yes, they are. It's is called Navi and was supposed to be competing with Volta, but it's tapeout has been postponed to end of 2017. AMD have now fallen 0.6 product cycles behind Nvidia. Vega took 12 months from tapeout to paper launch, and with availability to consumers in August, we're looking at 14 months. This means that Navi is close to slipping into 2019, delayed quite a lot before it's even a completed design.

I have been waiting for this for a very long time. I really was tired of waiting and wanted to go nvidoa just to avoid the wait... but I am not so confident about nvidia graphics card life. I have many bad experience with nvidia burning and I am not in for 2 year upgrade. My 280x is on its 4th year and still running strong..

Why is nvidia card not lasting long ? Anyone own have experience owning nvidia high end gpu for more than 4 years ? Do share your views..

CPU I am adamant that I won't pay big fat blue. No matter what. But graphics card I want to go nvidia just for the fps reason but not able to convince myself after having bad experience with 7600 and later 8800GTX XFX.. both got burned and they never replaced it and both only lasted 2 and 1.6 years..